moonslav59

The Yanks are 5-3 in their last 8 games and 4-1 in their last 5. We are 5-3 in our last 8 games and 4-1 in our last 5.

If a computer generated random samples of playoff results based on regular season numbers and specific sample sizes, it would generate a sample nearly identical to Kershaw's playoff line. How can anyone not think that maybe Kershaw's line is just a result of being that one guy that came out with bad numbers. It may have nothing to do with pressure or clutch. Players slump and streak all the time for reasons unknown to anyone, even themselves. Wouldn't one think players might slump during the playoffs for reasons having nothing to do with the fact that there is extra pressure on them and everyone in those games? Why do we, all of a sudden, pretend to know the specific reason Kershaw slumped at these times but not the others? If Kershaw does great, this October, will you guys say he gained the skill of handling pressure better? If he does poorly, I'm sure we'll here the, "See, I told you so's." Over Kershaw's career, he has allowed a .582 OPS against, but when it counts, during the regular season, sometimes in big games that determine making the playoffs or not, he has these numbers in high pressure situations: .547 Late & Close .502 RISP, 2 outs .582 RISP .585 Men on Base .599 High Leverage Nothing here indicates he comes up short, when it counts, but because of a scattered 189 IP sample size over a 14 year career where his WHIP is 1.072 as compared to a 1.002 regular season one, we are supposed to believe it HAS TO BE BECAUSE HE's A CHOKE! There can be no other explanation. It's a fact, because the numbers speak for themselves. He couldn't have just had the bad luck of slumping too many times in October, instead of September or May. Look, I know I can't prove clutch & choke are not real, and it does make some sense to think some players handle pressure better or worse than others, but it can't be proved the reason Kershaw's ERA is 4.19 in the playoffs is because he chokes or is NOT clutch. It just can't. In 8 of his 20 playoff series, he had an ERA of 3.00 or less, including 2 with a 0.00 ERA, which included an 8 inning WC shutdown. You can't get anymore clutch than a shutdown in an elimination game, but I guess that was just luck- not skill. My point is, if a computer generated the same amount of sample sizes as there are in the history of MLB playoffs, there would be some samples that jump out as being way lower and higher than the norm. It's just the way randomness works. Players often do real good for some stretches and real bad in others. There may or may not be any rhyme or reason for it. Why should the playoff samples, often spread over many seasons be any different? In fact, they are no different from computer generated outcomes. Coincidence or just randomness playing itself out?

It appears some just wanted Bloom to appear to try doing something. Robles & Davis did not count.

Random samples would produce the exact amount of Kershaws as there are. How do you explain that away without ever addressing that clear fact?

So, surprise people?

Looks like we are leaving one roster spot open for Taylor, who did NOT test positive for COVID. Houck will start one game. Wong was also demoted.

Maybe David Robertson will do the same.

The Yanks and Rays won, but the night did bring some good news: The CWS beat Oak, which moves us into the WC1 slot, and the Royals beat the Astros, which may not matter at all. Updated AL Standings 72-47 TBR 70-48 HOU 69-50 CWS 69-51 BOS (.5 from 3rd best record and 3.5 from ALE lead) 68-51 OAK WC2 (tough schedule catching up) 66-52 NYY -1.5 from WC2 and -2.0 from us. 63-54 TOR -4.0 WC2 63-56 SEA -5.0 WC2

Scattered small sample sizes are similar.

The thing is, a slump for someone like Gwynn was hitting .650 to .700, not .450 to .550. I checked out a few of his best seasons and found this: 1997: the year he hit .372 (.957 OPS) 35 games stretch hitting .287 (.730 OPS) near the end of the year. 1994: his best OPS year (1.022) Was the model for consistency. After being at .898 on April 22, he never fell below .967, and even then, he was only under .982 after just 2 games the rest of the season! He was over .990 after all but 4 games after 4/22. 1986: the year he had his most PAs (701) .848 OPS .741 in first 17 games (not far from .848). .675 in 24 game stretch from 7/17 to 8/12. Not your normal "slumps."

Well said. I'm far from giving upon Downs, but I was just pointing out how our farm improved, and what did not help it move up, this time. Maybe Next year, Downs helps us move to top 3, again. (That may be hard, as Duran will likely graduate from prospects status.)

Yanks and Rays up 2-1 in the 5th. If one could lose, tonight, it would be a nice boost for tomorrow.

I do think our farm got deeper by players already in the system getting better- not just by adding Mayer and other draftees. I have given credit to DD for some of the draft choices he made with low picks that have risen higher and faster than I expected. The thought deadline trades of 2020 would help more than it seemed to help. Pivetta was a great get, but he's not a prospect. Pots, Rosario, Wallace and others have been unimpressive. The Cordero trade added some promise, but nothing that jumps out at me. Downs is seeing his stock decline- maybe Wong's has risen a little. The trading away of Yankee farm depth was probably a big part of us passing them, despite jacko not thinking so. Having 3 guys in the to 40 was likely the biggest factor. We still seem to have a big gap between the tope 3 and the promising helium kids.

Are we so sure DR will bolster?

Bobby Dee does have much more to work on. My hope was he could improve his swing selection and take more walks, but I'm not sure if that's the issue. A sub .300 OBP is something a player needs a lot of power and better BA to outweigh it. The only thing I can say is that even though he is very old for a rookie, he only has 420 PAs in the bigs. He needs time to work through some of these things out, and maybe he never does. The issue might be that a winning team, sometimes can't have the patience to give players a long enough chance to show they belong. That pressure can also hurt a player- knowing there's a time limit.

Yes, I mentioned it after the Yanks traded away a lot of farm depth and the Sox drafted higher.

"Baseball America just released its updated organizational rankings and the Red Sox have made an impressive leap into the top 10, rising from 20th to ninth, leap-frogging both the Blue Jays and Yankees in the process. The Red Sox boast three of the game's top 100 prospects in first baseman Triston Casas (20th), outfielder Jarren Duran (22nd), and first-round pick Marcelo Mayer (32nd)." Jacko claimed the Yanks still ranked higher than the Sox after the draft and trade deadline deals.

Thanks for this. Jacko totally disagreed with me, when I said that after this draft we'd be close to even with the Yanks, if not better.

It has a very limited use: it's only good when comparing catchers from the same team with the same pitchers only. The sample sizes have to be significant, so often there are very few samples to compare. Other than that, the variables are not much different from other stats: strength of opponents vary, park factors, defensive alignments behind the pitchers and more vary, but that's true of BA, ERA, OPS, etc... It's also best to use OPS against- not just CERA. When one catcher continuously gets blown away by just about every pitcher by pitcher comp, it's hard to ignore.

We've had 6 signing periods since Moncada's year. Two were affected by penalties, but what of the next 4? Okay, one poor kid died (Daniel Flores in '17) and we also picked G Jimenez, that year, but he doesn't look like Moncada or Devers, just yet. Bonaci in '18? Nope. Chacon in '19? I think not. Bleis in '21 is too early to tell. (Sawamura is kinda separate.) We've lost an edge we used to hold. We went from Devers, Bogaerts, Moncada, Montas, Margot, DHern & Iggy in a 6 year period (2009-2014) to Nothing in the 6 periods from 2015-2021- count these as 4 yrs, but it still sucks.

So, the Sox have played 2 more games than the Rays and 3 more than the Yanks. Those numbers change in the next 8 days: Monday: Sox: no game Yanks v LAA TBR v BAL Tuesday BOS 2 @ NYY NYY 2 v BOS TBR v BAL Wednesday BOS @ NYY NYY v BOS TBR v BAL Thursday BOS: no game NYY v MN TBR v BAL FRI-SAT-SUN BOS v TEX NYY v MIN TBR v CWS MON BOS & TBR: no games NYY @ ATL At this point, the Yanks will be even with us in games played and TBR will gain 1 but still be one behind us.

So, it's real, but just terrible.

Well said, and there's one other thing: .362 OBP in minors .297 OBP in majors Can that be improved?

Has someone ever done a study that proves consistent hitting wins more games than streaky hitting? I would think it all evens out. Someone going 1 for 4 with a BB every game (.250 batter, .400 OBP) would create the same amount of runs as someone who goes 0-5 every other game and 2-3 with 2 BB every other game- or every other week... It's nice to have a streaky hitter when others are struggling. It's not so much help when the whole team is on fire and winning 20-8 and 16-2. This isn't meant to prove anything, but let's look at 2 of JBJ's most streaky seasons: 2015 and 2016. I honestly don't know the results before looking them up, just now... 2015 .384 OPS in his first 21 games (May10-Aug 5.) We went 15-6 in those games. 1.361 OPS in his next 28 games (8/6 to 9/7). Team 16-12. .510 the next 25 games to end the season. Team 13-12. 2016: .679 in first 21 games. Team 11-10. 1.245 in next 29 games. Team 19-10 .799 next 53 games. Team 29-24 ,703 in last 53 games. Team 32-21 I can't make heads or toes about anything, here.

But, it's .809 since June 5th- an even bigger sample size!